Member Info for dgdg1

Wonga, thanks. So basically you're saying that if you drill then the oil isn't mixed with sand at all therefore you don't need the Petroteq process. So do you get simple crude oil like standard oil drilling? If so what's this insitu process? I mean normal oil extraction isn't called insitu as far as I understand - I thought insitu is some form of processing that separates oil from sand. Sorry I'm still a bit confused here as you can see! And is the Quadrise process relevant to insitu?

bertyb01, thanks, you seem to be right especially in the light of the interview which came out just after your reply. It's two separate things.

Could you please explain - with the insitu drilled wells, what do you get? Do you get proper crude oil or do you get something like oil sands which need further processing, or do you get bitumen? From looking around wikepedia etc it looks like insitu is a process of extracting bitumen from the sands, it's instead of Petroteq's process. So if it's so good why can't the same process be used for the surface-mined sand, and what's the point of building a POSP? I thought the POSP converts sand into bitumen. Also, with the insitu production is Quadrise' technology relevant or is that only for the surface mined sand which is processed with the POSP? Thanks very much to whoever can clarify.

I want to ask a question which I admit may be stupid due to my lack of knowledge, but hopefully someone can explain. Tomco is now talking about wells. Does this tie in with the Petroteq sands processing methodology, which I thought means you just take sands from the site - how does a well come into it? It sounds like conventional oil extraction. And it they are doing that does this mean that the Petroteq technology for which they have a licence, is irrelevant?

And is this "in situ"production, which they previously referred to? Or what exactly is in situ production? Some clarity would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Booth not adding anything new, all answered below in my previous posts. Regurgitation yet again of the lubricant nonsense, all shown to be total nonsense by ssl in the last few days.

Bucolic, yes, I did notice that actually (the "have been a shareholder"wording), although subsequently he did try to say that he is still a shareholder as far as I remember. Anyway it's all irrelevant. Notice how when he gets caught out quite badly as now he posts a whole lot of posts just to distract and divert attention more, and confuse more. HIs attempts are getting really pathetic now. It's a shame as he is obviously intelligent, but wasting all his time and brainpower on twisting facts into absolute nonsense, with seemingly little benefit for anyone. Even if he's being paid, it's got to be pretty depressing to keep having to write total drivel. Come on booth, do something better with your life.

Yet more nonsense from booth. So it's a conspiracy that they excluded the absolutely most extreme cases of ED. How many such cases do you think actually exist? I don't believe it's more than 1% of ED sufferers, if that, probably less. So how much difference could it possibly have made to the results if they would have included a few such people even if the gel wouldn't have helped? Even if they would have allowed such sufferers to join the trials there wouldn't have been more than a few of them, because hardly any exist in the first place. So please don't try to make a drama out of this.

And by the way the study showed that the gel helped mild and moderate sufferers as well as severe cases. The extreme cases that you want Futura to have included obviously would have been classed as severe, so clearly they could not have affected the results for the mild and moderate cases.

Also, are you saying that all inclusion and exclusion criteria have to be exactly the same for studies to be comparable? And by the way the other trial excluded cases where "Subject has anatomical deformation of the ***** such as angulation, cavernosal fibrosis, or Peyronie¡-s disease, or history of genital surgery" which don't seem to have been excluded for Futura. So maybe that swings it for Futura? There are probably others as well but I haven't bothered to check.

And that's why none of the exclusion criteria needed to be mentioned outside the actual protocols - because it's so utterly insignificant. All this is just total and complete nonsense from booth designed, as usual, to confuse.

Booth you are just impossible. Why should they have stopped all foreplay? The point is that obviously they did whatever they always used to do, but those things had previously not helped. Whereas now suddenly everything was OK. So why do you think that was? Obviously because the gel helped. No need to pretend you are stupid here. And by the way, no, the criteria did NOT require people to respond to manual stimulation, it also allowed for people who responded just to visual stimulation. As you know very well. And as I explained before. And there is nothing sinister about it because if someone in the previous 3 months had not responded AT ALL to either manual or visual stimulation then he is clearly a very extreme case and was deemed inappropriate for the study. Sorry, there is no conspiracy. It's all very easy to understand and makes perfectly good sense. Maybe move back to one of your other nonsensical objections.

As usual booth keeps skirting around the issues, adding in misleading points, etc.

Again, he has not answered why Futura included the requirement "Subject has been involved in a continuous heterosexual relationship for at least 6 months prior to screening" - where is the safety issue which requires a 6 month relationship? And the other trial which he linked to did not include this requirement. So is there some sinister reason for that also?

And he implies that Futura trained people to have visual stimulation - where does he get that from? As far as I can see the training was just how to apply the gel. The link that he provided has no connection to Futura.

Anyone thinking straight will see that the truth is very simple - they didn't want the most extreme or unusual cases. As indeed they also excluded someone with "Any penile surgery except circumcision". Or "Subjects with severe premature ejaculation". And actually the other non-Futura study that he linked to has the exclusion "Subject has anatomical deformation of the ***** such as angulation, cavernosal fibrosis, or Peyronie¡-s disease, or history of genital surgery." It's very simple, you exclude highly unusual and extreme cases. It's a total non-issue.

But expect more confusion and distorting tactics from booth, I may not bother to reply because as usual it's just getting stupid.

So on we go round and round

And what conspiracy theory can he come up with to explain why they excluded people over 70? And indeed why did they make the requirement of "Subject has been involved in a continuous heterosexual relationship for at least 6 months prior to screening"? But the obvious truth is that they didn't want to include anyone whose problems are likely very severe or possibly unusual and thus placing an unfairly high burden on the gel to be effective. They wanted to cover cases which are more normal, even if moderate or severe.

Based on booth's theory why did they leave the door open to people who responded to visual stimulation even if they didn;'t respond to mechanical stimulation?

I assume the "£1 a share BP has promised us all" is said in jest?

"The only value I apply to this share price works as follows - positive trial data and she explodes out the blocks. On its upwards trajectory I decide when I will sell some. Simples" And that seems to summarise quite well the quality of the analysis of a lot of people on this board. Anyway, why I am wasting so much time arguing with people who just don't want to hear or can't understand? Complete waste of time. Originally I was hoping to get some intelligent answers, but obviously am not getting any. I'm not saying there aren't any but no-one here seems able or willing to provide any.

No actually I just queried why finncap hadn't changed their estimates of potential sales after the vaccines came out. Subsequently I decided that even though they had been wrong not to amend the estimates it was still worth investing.

Genuinely I have no idea why those posts were removed. You think I am a paid deramper, carry on imagining if you want. I have been totally open that I sold the shares and why and that I hope to get back in, I can't really be bothered to go over the old points I made as no-one here (well there was one exception) seems to understand the correct mathematical approach to value shares of this nature where this is a strong risk element. I suggest you check how analysts calculate a fair value for mining stocks or indeed pharma stocks - they work out what profits would be if successful and then try to estimate a probability and multiply the two together. It's the only logical way. But you can carry on denigrating me if you think only you understand.

It was official a few days ago. The offer price is equivalent to about $0.598 or about 43.5p.

You are repeating the same question as earlier to which I gave a lengthy reply based on the protocol. But more specifically, when you say "maybe that’s why Synairgen have chosen to not say a single word on P2 efficacy where others have " this cannot be the case as Synairgen have clearly said they have not received any data of the trial. So it can't be that they are deliberately not commenting on exactly how effective it was given they don't know this themselves. All they (and we) know is (as I explained at length) that the DSMB recommended that it proceed, which must mean there is sufficient efficacy data in the phase 2 trial itself for it to proceed.

Stu485, you ask:

"Looking at the BRii news release for progression from Active P2 to P3, there is content regarding efficacy.Why do you think in stark contrast Synairgen makes no reference to efficacy ?

Is it possible in the Synairgen case, consideration was made on trial safety and supported by the "growing evidence" referenced in the Synairgen RNS ,of likely efficacy from other studies trials but not specifically Active ?"

I think the answer can be found in Synairgen's RNS, which was much briefer than BRII's release. They said ".... the external data safety monitoring board (DSMB) of the ACTIV-2 study has recommended that SNG001 advance into Phase 3 ...." In the protocol of Activ-2 recently published it's clear that there is a Trial Oversight Commitee (TOC) who make the decisions, based on recommendations from the data safety monitoring board (DSMB). In the "regimen" of the "schema" (page 15) which sets out the general overview of the study, it says "Investigational agents will be included in phase III evaluation based on agent entry criteria for phase III as outlined in the protocol (or by TOC approval based on data available outside of ACTIV-2)." Thus there are two options for progression to phase 3, the first is " based on agent entry criteria for phase III as outlined in the protocol ". The second possibility is that the TOC approves it "based on data available outside of ACTIV-2". Under the second scenario, it seems that it is the TOC who decides without reference to the DSMB, as the DSMB are only there to assess the data from the Activ-2 trial itself.

This is further clarified In the main body of the protocol on page 29-30 which says "The DSMB will review unblinded data and make recommendations to NIAID (as trial sponsor) and to the TOC, indicating whether graduation criteria have been
met (see below for criteria). The recommendation for an agent to enter phase III evaluation will be made by the TOC in discussion with the company...." and then "The TOC may recommend an agent move directly into phase III, without evaluation in phase II in ACTIV-2, if there is sufficient safety and efficacy data supporting phase III evaluation available from outside of the trial. These agents will not undergo graduation analyses."

Since Synairgen stated in their RNS that it is the DSMB who recommended progression to phase 3, it seems clear that there was safety and efficacy seen in the Activ-2 trial itself, as then explained under "Criteria for Graduation of an Agent from Phase II to Phase III" - "Graduation of an investigational agent from phase II to phase III evaluation will be based on there being a desired level of evidence of an effect of an investigational agent versus placebo on one or more virologic and clinical outcome measures, as well as safety...."

The only caveat is that the efficacy required for progression is EITHER a lower level of the virus detected in samples taken, OR an improvement in symptoms, we cannot be sure wh

81lucky precisely, such a shame he can't move on from the subject and think about other things. I think he is probably now working on getting our posts removed, so don't be surprised if they disappear soon.

Booth, nearly 600 negative posts, amazing! And given you say you are a shareholder but are really worried about the company it's amazingly selfless of you to want to persuade others to sell and not worry that it might affect the share price. It's even more amazing that you don't sell yourself. Maybe the reason for that is that you don't want to knock down the share price by selling, thus causing others to have to sell for a lower price.

What a fine upstanding member of society.

But seriously now, whatever self-interested reasons he has for his posts, there is a psychological obsession here as well which indicates that he has a serious problem, which is very sad.

When was the new version of the protocol published. People are saying "from June" - does that mean it was published in June and if so why has no-one noticed until now?